Because it wouldn’t do a damn thing for people in red states.
I agree with a lot of your points, but it seems you skipped addressing the primary target of any measure enacted: black people.
I’ve seen it pointed out elsewhere that women often change their name after marriage, which makes this a way to mass-disenfranchise women since their names won’t match their birth certificate.
What you are ignoring that the entire point of these voter registration plans is to suppress the votes of Democrats. It doesn’t matter what the Democrats do since either the rules will be changed to exclude any ID they can help with or the plan will be dropped entirely, since a plan that actually works goes against the whole point.
Then we should look at the political leanings of local registration office employees.
Polling shows federal government workers moderately skew towards the Democrats. I cannot find comparable polls for state and local government workers. But it seems pretty obvious that Republicans prefer to work in private industry.
I suppose someone could say that however few the Republican voting registration clerks, they will cheat while the Democratic staffers will be honest. I almost think that there could be something to this. But I also think it would be the tiniest factor, overwhelmed by Democrats being more determined to vote and more likely to have passports.
Something like 65-70% of US women (might be more, that was the last statistic I read) have changed their name due to marriage. In my case, I had my maiden name for 23 years and have had my husband’s family name for almost 40. I have all kinds of official documentation, including a passport and a Global Entry ID, in my married name. I haven’t used my maiden name for decades. Suddenly I have to present a copy of my birth certificate, or carry my passport to vote? To prove what, that I haven’t been living a fraudulent existence for the last four decades?
This bullshit is not just intended to disenfranchise black people. It’s intended to disenfranchise women also, and it’s straight out of the 2025 project.
I just can’t wrap my head around the fact that these folks tell us exactly what they intend to do and people respond with denial.
Good for you. My parents didn’t keep mine. It wasn’t difficult to get a certified copy from the county, but there was a procedure and a fee, both of which can be barriers for people with limited income, limited English, unstable housing, or any number of other factors.
If the SAVE Act passes without amendment, and is signed as Trump has promised to do, only voter registration changes. So it only affects you if you move. Since you have a passport, you would not need a birth certificate.
They could not care less about matters of principle such as whether women and Black people are enfranchised or disenfranchised. What they care about is winning elections.
My hope is that they are on track to passing the SAVE Act. Or, conceivably, Trump will try putting it in place by decree, as he does with so much else. Then, when MAGAworld finds their registration percentage going down, they would attempt to repeal it, but with a little luck it would be too late – they would already be on track to lose in 2026 and 2028…
Then why do they keep telling us that they do care?
As always, this law is a joke. It is not even a thinly veiled attempt to suppress voting and make voting more difficult. Project 2025 was pretty clear. It’s a waste of time and money since, “VOTER FRAUD!!!,” is virtually non- existant. This is so, particularly when in the rare instances it does occur, there is no way it could possibly affect the outcome of an election.
Voting is a right. No one should be required to jump through hoops to vote. But the pubbies, and people who enable them with seriously considering ths crap are, in search of a solution to a non-existant problem.
The pubs, of course, know it’s bs, but they suck in just enough people who think, " Yeah, seems fair," that it keeps this crap alive.
I don’t understand where the OP’s confidence that such a policy would hurt the Republicans more stems from. According to this analysis, five groups are likely to be most impacted by the requirement: married women, the elderly, young, Hispanic, and low-income voters. Here’s how these groups voted in the last election:
- Women: 53% Harris (vs. 45%), 10% points higher than men
- Elderly: “The candidates were tied at 49 percent among voters 65 and older.”
- Young: “Young voters favored Kamala Harris over Donald Trump in the 2024 election by 4 points: 51% to 47%.”
- Hispanic: “With 56 percent of the Latino vote, Kamala Harris continued the trend of Democratic majorities.” (Trump 42%)
- Low-income: <30,000: Harris 50%, Trump 46%, 30,000 - 50,000: Harris 45%, Trump 53%
So even allowing for some inaccuracies (married women may vote differently than women in total, the article considers ‘elderly’ to be 80+, I’m not sure if Latino and Hispanic are used co-extensively here, my research method being ‘use the first google result that provides numbers’ etc.), I don’t really see any grounds for confidence that restricting these groups from voting would disproportionately hurt the Republicans—rather the other way around.
Can you substantiate that assertion?
No. I’m not ignoring it. I’m telling Dems to stop crying and actually do something about it. How many people without their ID have YOU helped by getting it?
Reality. How many Democratic-based organizations are out there getting people IDs?
Oh. You’re talking about preparing people for the literacy test. Somehow that doesn’t strike me as the way to go about preventing the erosion of rights for an entire group of people.
I wouldn’t know how (I’d be more likely to need the help myself), not that there’s a point.
So no point in helping people getting people documentation to let them vote? Glad I disagree with you.
Did I say that? No. The way you save democracy is by getting them the documents to register to vote. Handwringing and gnashing of teeth do not help them to vote, does it?
If the Pubs pass a law to require REAL-ID to vote, it’s shameful that the Democrats’ solution is to complain about it and not help people get REAL-IDs.
I disagree. So ok we all get, “the right id.” The next step is eroding voting rights some other way. So, no, helping people get whatever id the pubs come up with won’t address the real problem. Protesting and working to stop these laws is not crying. Even talking about it isn’t “crying.” It’s calling out undemocratic bullsh*t.
Making procurement of whatever id hoop they come up with a priority is just caving.
The Voter ID issue is weird in the US.
Sylvanz is precisely correct, but Saint_Cad is also correct that ensuring people have access to ID is a good thing, and that showing ID to vote is not inherently a tool of voter suppression (I have to show ID to vote in Canada, for example).
It’s just that any logical assessment of what’s going on and how to fix it needs to take into account the cultural context, the long and storied history of voter suppression in the United States. Literacy tests aren’t, in theory, a bad idea: don’t you need to be able to read to be able to vote? Historically, “literacy tests” weren’t about literacy, and “voter ID” isn’t about voter ID.
Supervisor of elections is an elected position, at least where I live, and highly partisan.
~Max
For most people, their only Real ID is their driver’s license or passport. Although the bill states that a Real ID can serve as proof of citizenship when it indicates citizenship, and all states issue Real-ID compliant licenses, no states issue drivers licenses indicating citizenship.
~Max